Warning: This is one of those Sheehan diaries. While the issue is something that seems to have been beaten nearly to death over the past few days and there are already pleadings to stop the discussion, I just wanted to share a conclusion which you may or may not find important or meaningful. You can scroll down to read it, or you can simply click on the "Back" icon, which you probably have already done.
Over the past three years that I've been reading this site, it seems that there has been some major internal flare-up every few months. Pie fights, Ohio primaries, troll-rating etiquette, and blogrolls have all led to all sorts of sniping and infighting. We've even seen outsiders speculate on the coming "implosion" of the Daily Kos, and had our share of laughs over such speculation.
The latest firestorm over Cindy Sheehan's probable run against Nancy Pelosi, however, is something which I doubt anyone will find humorous, either now or in the future. While I do not think that this is something that will truly tear this community apart, it is obviously disturbing that someone who was once one of our most heralded members would refer to us as the party of slavery who's responsible for nearly the wars of the 20th Century (I guess that "Splendid little war" with Spain doesn't count) and seeing members who once held her, if not in utmost admiration, at least in general respect, say things such as "Fuck her" and other disgusting epithets. I guess if I'm going to write about this, I should probably discuss my own personal thoughts on the Sheehan. The place where I start is this:
Cindy Sheehan is someone who displays the possibilities, limits, and problems of an everyday person with no prior political experience taking center stage in the public eye.
When she first began camping out in front of George Bush's ranch and demanded that he explain to her the "noble cause" that led to her son being sent to Iraq to die, I along with most of the country was struck by how such a simple request could be rebuffed so cooly by the President, who was stuck only a few minutes away. More appalling was the manner in which members of the right reacted to her, ranging from calling her a "pathetic creature" who was making her son "[spin] in his grave" (Mark Williams on Hardball), to sponsoring a "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour (Move America Forward). They even spread rumors that she did not actually raise her son (see here). All the while, George Bush could have spoken with her for a matter of minutes and for all practical purposes, put the issues to rest. As Steve Gillard said:
Sheehan unmasked the real Bush. [It was] [t]he worst mistake of his presidency. 15 minutes with her and that would have ended it. Just 15 minutes. Instead, they run oppo on her, make her into a martyr. You couldn't have handled it worse than Bush did. The radio attacks calling her nuts was the thing which quietly ate into his wider support. People who grew up during Korea and served in Vietnam were horrified by those attacks. People didn't say much, but it was one of those things which decent people didn't do. Bush could have stopped it with two phonecalls by Rove, but they just didn't get it. Even families which support the war disliked the way she was treated.
Her message at the time was simple; that the "just cause" for going to war was hollow and that we needed to exit Iraq. Despite much of her extravagant language, seeing the face of someone who was directly affected by the war speak out against it was something that not only helped jump-start the anti-war movement again, but spoke well to the people of Middle America, whose interest in the war had waned. Here was no celebrity, but just an ordinary person who lost her son and demanded answers.
Unfortunately, celebrity is something that affects people, not usually for the better, and it is seldom something that is good for the grieving process. As she attracted more and more acclaim, her language, while somewhat loaded before, grew more outlandish. I'll be the first to say (no doubt to the consternation of many here) that she has said and done things that have made groan on several occasions. Like when she said,
I have never called "terrorists" freedom fighters. I have called the resistance fighters who killed Casey such, but they are fighting to get the occupying forces out of their country and have a legitimate right to wage a resistance against occupiers.
-April 1, 2006
Obviously, that's just one example, and there are plenty of good things that she has said and done. We do owe her our thanks for bringing Iraq to the forefront again. Still, it's obvious that the war, the death of her son, and her ensuing campaign to end the war have all taken a tremendous toll on her and that she could use a break. When she announced her departure from activism, I was relieved, not because I'm a concern troll who won't accept anyone unless they talk and act exactly in line with myself, but because it was clear that what was happening in Cindy's life was not good for her. Reading her resignation letter, I was particularly struck when she said,
"The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most."
Coming to such a conclusion has to be devestating for anyone, traumatizing even. Though I have lost loved ones, I have never had one taken from me in the kind of manner that her son was, and can hardly begin to understand the depth of her loss and the conclusions she came to as she watched an apathetic public and Congress allow a war to go on. While I understood how this made her want to change things all the more, I figured that being away from politics and all that comes with it would be good for her.
That's why when she began posting diaries again, I was, well... concerned. I just didn't see it leading to anything good. Her threat to run against Nancy Pelosit if the Speaker did not bring impeachment charges against George Bush seemed to put everyone in an even worse position, as evidenced by the exchanges that we've all been having over the past few days.
If you can't tell by now, I'm against her running. First, while I'm for investigating Bush and bringing his actions to light, I don't see trying to impeach Bush to be productive. I know that's not popular around here and most of you probably have counterarguments against what I think about it (and I would be interested in hearing them), but I do have my reasons. Congress would have to gather evidence, organize charges, and then not only pass them in the House, but prove them in a Senate trial so that two thirds of the body would vote to remove him. Then, they would have to repeat the entire process for Dick Cheney if they wanted the proceedings to mean anything. I'm sorry, but it's just not going to happen. There are not enough Democrats who support it and virtually no Republicans. Meanwhile, nearly all other business of Congress would be suspended. The entire process would likely take over a whole year. Moreover, all that Bush would have to do to keep his policies going through the end of 2008 is to replace Cheney with some other Bush loyalist, such as McCain, who probably would have lost the Republican primaries by the time the proceedings began and would do anything for that one last chance to be war president. Even if it somehow did succeed as we desired, the new President (Pelosi), would have little time to organize a transitional administration and run the country before the next President took over. In other words, it would be an exercise in futility.
Also, I know a lot of people here are mad at Pelso for certain reasons (such as impeachment, obviously), but I guess that I'm one of those crazies around here that still views her as one of the good guys. You may have noticed that today she got the House to pass a deadline for troop withdrawal, if that means anything to anybody. She's helped stick up for progressives in Congress and has moved to reward those who have taken a harder line against this administration (Murtha, anyone?) while demoting those who haven't (ie, Harman).
Furthermore, trying to take out Pelosi from the left will probably not move her more to our side. Pelosi stands no chance of losing her seat. If Cindy runs, Pelosi will simply win by an enormous margin, just as she has since 1987. In other words, there is no credible threat for her to worry about. Those that say that such a run would "send a message" forget something: that is, she has already heard the message. She's been savaged while writing diaries here and has already been subject to lobbying from other Congressman. To think that a Cindy run, which would be a non-starter from the get-go, would sway her position is ridiculous. Besides, by the time the campaign got underway, Bush's presidency would be winding down and any impeachment proceeding would be functionally useless.
However, the attacks from some corners of this community (ie, "fuck her", "attention whore", etc.) have been over-the-top and frankly, pretty disgusting. Look at some of the comments that right-wingers have made about her and compare them to some of the stuff said here. We're supposed to be a tolerant, progressive, community, we shouldn't emulate the Limbaughs and the Coulters of the world, even when dealing with people saying things that deeply offend us. While I've groaned at many of the things that Cindy has said, she has every right to be angry and we who have been willing to cut her some slack when she's said things that offend Republicans should forgive things that offend us and be reasonable when addressing her.
Anyway, now what I'm done rambbling, I just want to point out what seems clear but I haven't heard anybody say yet, that seeing Cindy in the public again should serve as a reminder of what we need to do: bring an end to this war.
Remember that House resolution that I just mentioned? That means that Senate proceedings will be starting soon enough. This new war we've been having in this community has probably put a smile on the face of every right-winger that has smeared Cindy and everybody else that has stood in their way. It's time to put our eye back on the ball and wipe that smile off.
Write your Senators, call their offices. Tell them to do what it takes. I'll be writing to one of my Senators, Carl Levin, telling him to reconsider his idea of taking defunding the war off the table. As much as we criticize our Democratic Congress, they do respond to pressure and will on the war. It's something we need to make happen, for the troops, our country, and yes... for Cindy.
Here's the contact information for your Senators. The ball's in our court now.